Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Again....
Again, a "crew" managed to crash a perfectly good airplane
With all the courses, line/sim-checks and not to forget the computer and gadgets, they just "forgot" to FLY the aircraft.
I quess: 1. Aviate, 2.Navigate, 3.Communicate is not known anymore.
Even much, much lower paid Turboprop pilots, flying in worse conditions and dodgy airports, know how to fly on a perfect cavok day with light winds a visual approach WITHOUT even having a authothrottle!!!!
With all the courses, line/sim-checks and not to forget the computer and gadgets, they just "forgot" to FLY the aircraft.
I quess: 1. Aviate, 2.Navigate, 3.Communicate is not known anymore.
Even much, much lower paid Turboprop pilots, flying in worse conditions and dodgy airports, know how to fly on a perfect cavok day with light winds a visual approach WITHOUT even having a authothrottle!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are the CC paraded like convicts?
I guess thought out by very senior PR people to create sympathy. Seems not in the interest of the crew at all.
They do not seem happy at all and (purposely?) wear no uniforms.
Odd.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Capt. Emad misunderstood my comment about those who do not have English as the native language. The rapid fire instructions from the New York Controllers or in particular the ATC at Chicago is conveyed at a speed that may even perplex a British pilot.
If the culture of the Korean people is to defer to those in authority, or regret to admit you didn't understand or dare to question the instruction given by ATC, it may be hard to come back with "Say Again ...." or "Unable". Thereby electing to continue on a very uncomfortable descent profile rather than complain.
Thank you, heavy heavy, I think you understood exactly! I would rather fly in your 747 any day.
If the culture of the Korean people is to defer to those in authority, or regret to admit you didn't understand or dare to question the instruction given by ATC, it may be hard to come back with "Say Again ...." or "Unable". Thereby electing to continue on a very uncomfortable descent profile rather than complain.
Thank you, heavy heavy, I think you understood exactly! I would rather fly in your 747 any day.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Course profile
Technology is not a replacement for basic flying skills, it is an aid to it.
All pilots should be able to fly the aircraft visually and without the aircraft automatic systems.
The Technology is in place to enable the pilots to do the job in worse weather and more efficiently not to replace basic flying skills.
There is more to this accident than just a pilot screwing up because of a lack of flying skill, my guess is that the root cause of this accident lays deep in the cultural dynamic on this particular flight deck.
All pilots should be able to fly the aircraft visually and without the aircraft automatic systems.
The Technology is in place to enable the pilots to do the job in worse weather and more efficiently not to replace basic flying skills.
There is more to this accident than just a pilot screwing up because of a lack of flying skill, my guess is that the root cause of this accident lays deep in the cultural dynamic on this particular flight deck.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Course Profile, Your assetion that having the GS turned off was a cause of this crash is just wrong. It wasn't a primary cause. It wasn't even a contributary cause or else more aircraft would crash every time there was no GS available.
Aircraft land at airports all over the world every day using a visual approach without crashing. The PAPI was working perfectly and that is the main assistance the pilot needs for a visual approach, not a GS.
To go back to Jimjim's reference to a bank, would you expect the bank to use a mortgage calculator when all you are trying to do is withdraw $100 from your checking account? That is the equivilent to what you are suggesting here. Why would an instrument approach tool be needed for a visual approach?
Aircraft land at airports all over the world every day using a visual approach without crashing. The PAPI was working perfectly and that is the main assistance the pilot needs for a visual approach, not a GS.
To go back to Jimjim's reference to a bank, would you expect the bank to use a mortgage calculator when all you are trying to do is withdraw $100 from your checking account? That is the equivilent to what you are suggesting here. Why would an instrument approach tool be needed for a visual approach?
Last edited by Ka6crpe; 11th Jul 2013 at 10:29.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/T and alpha floor protection in B777
When the pilot just disengage the A/T by pressing the A/T disconn switch on both throttle level, does A/T remain in armed status? A/T should wake up after you select SPEED or VNAV mode on MCP, right? Similarly, it should wake up by alpha floor protection when speed is too low and approaching the stall. Why was not alpha protection activated in Asiana 214 if we assumed they never touch FLCH button? How does the FD affact the status of A/T?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what has been provided the cabin crew seem to have remained calm and rational and provided direction when appropriate. The disembarkation occurred in an organised manner, people even got their carry on luggage out with them and there was no panic.
Not sure what more people could want from them.
Not sure what more people could want from them.
Evacuation
Ok, a post or two of mine about this was deleted so let me repeat. Regarding evacuation:
1. As correctly pointed out, there is a procedure to be followed by both FD & CC
2. The CC are required to wait for assessment/instruction by the FD crew EXCEPT in a catastrophic situation
3. CATASTROPHIC for most airline purposes means- A major or multiple breaks in the fuselage, a major, self sustaining fire INSIDE the cabin, or Ditching, any kind of ditching.
Now, from what we have heard so far, I would not be so quick to blast the CC or pilots for taking what you may think is "too long". The figure for a 90 sec evac is generally taken to mean 90sec once it BECOMES APPARENT THAT EVAC IS NECESSARY.
From the CC side, an immediate, CC-initiated evac is generally when there is an IMMEDIATE AND SUSTAINED THREAT TO THE LIFE OF THE CC MEMBER and/or passengers in the vicinity.
Running the checklist is procedure for a reason. We have seen cases where in hindsight, popping the slides and going for gold would have turned out not so good. (Think QF32 as an example- engines were still running)
Now, when we take into account what the purser said, her description of the landing and what we see in the first photos taken by pax. They MAY have felt it was 'only' a hard landing. She describes the plane as "Swaying from side to side" (We know it did much more than that from the video- she obviously did not feel it to be so bad)
She followed procedure and went immediately to the FD (either contact by phone or in person, tick that box, she did it) This rules out for the time being a CC initiated evac- the pilots are still standing and are contactable.
The captain said "wait". Most CC would take this to mean he is running the checklist and deciding if immediate evacuation is needed. If things appeared very dire she would no doubt tell them at this point (it seems from what she said that she did not realize the extent of the damage at first until she went back further into the cabin)
She mentions taking a fire extinguisher- ergo- it was the belief of the crew that the initial cabin fire was controllable. We know that 5 (maybe 7) crew were knocked out. Therefore she has lost them as a source of info and last thing pax will do/know is how to pick up the phone and call her.
Once the information changed, it appears the evacuation was immediately commanded.
The 'line' for the CC to initiate, when it is not a ditching:
1- The flight crew are NOT contactable
2- There is immediate and serious danger to continued life
3- Conditions inside the cabin are untenable
Then the procedure is along the lines of
1. Command evacuation/relay to other crew (verbally or by PA)
2. Evaluate the conditions at your specific door
3. Operate the door if able and expedite the evac
Of course exact procedure varies between airline but would be something along these lines.
As to the FD crew, once the pax are out you go check on them. Hopefully by the time the pax are streaming along down the slides everyone except the Capt are out the cockpit windows helping on the ground or out of the door assisting in the cabin.
Of course this is just an example of some of the factors that may have come into play and may of course vary depending on whether the accounts have changed or become clearer with time. Hope this gives some insight to those who are not on the cabin side of the door.
As always, personal post only and no official comment associated with my employer/s
1. As correctly pointed out, there is a procedure to be followed by both FD & CC
2. The CC are required to wait for assessment/instruction by the FD crew EXCEPT in a catastrophic situation
3. CATASTROPHIC for most airline purposes means- A major or multiple breaks in the fuselage, a major, self sustaining fire INSIDE the cabin, or Ditching, any kind of ditching.
Now, from what we have heard so far, I would not be so quick to blast the CC or pilots for taking what you may think is "too long". The figure for a 90 sec evac is generally taken to mean 90sec once it BECOMES APPARENT THAT EVAC IS NECESSARY.
From the CC side, an immediate, CC-initiated evac is generally when there is an IMMEDIATE AND SUSTAINED THREAT TO THE LIFE OF THE CC MEMBER and/or passengers in the vicinity.
Running the checklist is procedure for a reason. We have seen cases where in hindsight, popping the slides and going for gold would have turned out not so good. (Think QF32 as an example- engines were still running)
Now, when we take into account what the purser said, her description of the landing and what we see in the first photos taken by pax. They MAY have felt it was 'only' a hard landing. She describes the plane as "Swaying from side to side" (We know it did much more than that from the video- she obviously did not feel it to be so bad)
She followed procedure and went immediately to the FD (either contact by phone or in person, tick that box, she did it) This rules out for the time being a CC initiated evac- the pilots are still standing and are contactable.
The captain said "wait". Most CC would take this to mean he is running the checklist and deciding if immediate evacuation is needed. If things appeared very dire she would no doubt tell them at this point (it seems from what she said that she did not realize the extent of the damage at first until she went back further into the cabin)
She mentions taking a fire extinguisher- ergo- it was the belief of the crew that the initial cabin fire was controllable. We know that 5 (maybe 7) crew were knocked out. Therefore she has lost them as a source of info and last thing pax will do/know is how to pick up the phone and call her.
Once the information changed, it appears the evacuation was immediately commanded.
The 'line' for the CC to initiate, when it is not a ditching:
1- The flight crew are NOT contactable
2- There is immediate and serious danger to continued life
3- Conditions inside the cabin are untenable
Then the procedure is along the lines of
1. Command evacuation/relay to other crew (verbally or by PA)
2. Evaluate the conditions at your specific door
3. Operate the door if able and expedite the evac
Of course exact procedure varies between airline but would be something along these lines.
As to the FD crew, once the pax are out you go check on them. Hopefully by the time the pax are streaming along down the slides everyone except the Capt are out the cockpit windows helping on the ground or out of the door assisting in the cabin.
Of course this is just an example of some of the factors that may have come into play and may of course vary depending on whether the accounts have changed or become clearer with time. Hope this gives some insight to those who are not on the cabin side of the door.
As always, personal post only and no official comment associated with my employer/s
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C.
I agree with you 100%.
I was just wondering how I'd explain it to my non aviation friends. A lot of them work in banks and JimJims point made me think.
To the outside world it looks bl**dy risky to start turning off the technology that will help get them back on to the ground safely. The pilots line (my line) would be that it shouldn't be a problem because we should be able to fly visually, but there is a very real evidence that this just isn't true.
Where do you go with the logic there?
To an outsider looking in I can see why it would be jaw on the floor time to learn that they might get on a plane being flown by a guy under training into an airport where they've switched off the (to a lay man) technology that gets you back on the ground.
I hope that this reinforces to the industry that you cannot allow your pilots to get slack at old fashioned stick and rudder flying. I really don't like phrases such 'doesn't belong in the cockpit' because it seems to play the man not the ball. (I know you didn't use that phrase)
I agree with you 100%.
I was just wondering how I'd explain it to my non aviation friends. A lot of them work in banks and JimJims point made me think.
To the outside world it looks bl**dy risky to start turning off the technology that will help get them back on to the ground safely. The pilots line (my line) would be that it shouldn't be a problem because we should be able to fly visually, but there is a very real evidence that this just isn't true.
Where do you go with the logic there?
To an outsider looking in I can see why it would be jaw on the floor time to learn that they might get on a plane being flown by a guy under training into an airport where they've switched off the (to a lay man) technology that gets you back on the ground.
I hope that this reinforces to the industry that you cannot allow your pilots to get slack at old fashioned stick and rudder flying. I really don't like phrases such 'doesn't belong in the cockpit' because it seems to play the man not the ball. (I know you didn't use that phrase)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Carmarthen
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As course_profile said, looking at the pile of smoking twisted metal and saying 'well, they _should_ have been able to land just fine, so no lessons to learn here about a hugely busy major international airport in the richest country in the world turning all its electronic landing aids off and thinking that's not a potential safety issue' is not going to sit well with those of us who pay to ride in the back of planes flown by the steely eyed heroes of the sky in the front.
I'm sure we would all like to think that we have 'Sully' in the driving seat when something goes tits up (like the airbus you are on turning into a glider over a major city with only a river to try to land on), but you don't have to be an 'aviation expert' to know that for every 'Sully' flying passengers around the sky there has to be an equal & opposite 'Anti-Sully' who can't cope at all when something sufficiently out of their comfort zone occurs. And that presumably even the "Sully's" of this world aren't entirely infallible on their worst days.
It doesn't matter that 'we know nothing about aviation', the bottom line is that as punters, whether you think we are entitle to or not, we damned well will expect that a) If all the navaids and hi-tech landing aids at an airport do conk out then YES the drivers of a modern highly automated robotic super jet can still get everybody down in one piece with no drama, but that b) NO they should damn well never be asked to prove it absent earthquake or other calamity, and especially not just because one of the worlds busiest airports can't be bothered to find a way to provide the services we expect to be there to make our flights safer.
I'm sure we would all like to think that we have 'Sully' in the driving seat when something goes tits up (like the airbus you are on turning into a glider over a major city with only a river to try to land on), but you don't have to be an 'aviation expert' to know that for every 'Sully' flying passengers around the sky there has to be an equal & opposite 'Anti-Sully' who can't cope at all when something sufficiently out of their comfort zone occurs. And that presumably even the "Sully's" of this world aren't entirely infallible on their worst days.
It doesn't matter that 'we know nothing about aviation', the bottom line is that as punters, whether you think we are entitle to or not, we damned well will expect that a) If all the navaids and hi-tech landing aids at an airport do conk out then YES the drivers of a modern highly automated robotic super jet can still get everybody down in one piece with no drama, but that b) NO they should damn well never be asked to prove it absent earthquake or other calamity, and especially not just because one of the worlds busiest airports can't be bothered to find a way to provide the services we expect to be there to make our flights safer.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lincolnshire UK
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport Outlines Plans to Re-open sfo'S Runway 28L
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KWH
It doesn't matter that 'we know nothing about aviation', the bottom line is
that as punters, whether you think we are entitle to or not, we damned well will
expect that a) If all the navaids and hi-tech landing aids at an airport do conk
out then YES the drivers of a modern highly automated robotic super jet can
still get everybody down in one piece with no drama, but that b) NO they should
damn well never be asked to prove it absent earthquake or other calamity, and
especially not just because one of the worlds busiest airports can't be bothered
to find a way to provide the services we expect to be there to make our flights
safer.
Back at NH,
That will probably be established with time. We do know there were burns, how those were sustained is probably not too clear at the moment. We know (at least one) of the doors was opened by a pax... possible it was opened when it was better to stay closed (I think it was on the side of the cabin where the engine fire was, but have not seen the most recent pics so may be mistaken on that one)
As to the CC being ejected along with the girls...
I saw a Mythbusters episode where they tested the difference between Y, F, fwd and rear facing jumpseats. IIRC the difference between the fwd and rear facing crew seats was something like withstanding 20G's or 80'Gs... might go a way to explaining why the cabin crew seemed to be (relatively) unharmed for having done DB Cooper on the ground....
Also very possible that (sadly) the two youngsters were not wearing seatbelts adequately or at all. (I see it very often with groups of teens) They want to look out the window but cannot see, unbuckle on landing to get a look outside. Game over. If they did wear seatbelts, and tightly enough, it will be interesting to see what the people near them can recall. (May point to a failure of the seatbelts?)
EDIT: Can we please stop posting the "account from an expat trainer"? It's been posted three times already
That will probably be established with time. We do know there were burns, how those were sustained is probably not too clear at the moment. We know (at least one) of the doors was opened by a pax... possible it was opened when it was better to stay closed (I think it was on the side of the cabin where the engine fire was, but have not seen the most recent pics so may be mistaken on that one)
As to the CC being ejected along with the girls...
I saw a Mythbusters episode where they tested the difference between Y, F, fwd and rear facing jumpseats. IIRC the difference between the fwd and rear facing crew seats was something like withstanding 20G's or 80'Gs... might go a way to explaining why the cabin crew seemed to be (relatively) unharmed for having done DB Cooper on the ground....
Also very possible that (sadly) the two youngsters were not wearing seatbelts adequately or at all. (I see it very often with groups of teens) They want to look out the window but cannot see, unbuckle on landing to get a look outside. Game over. If they did wear seatbelts, and tightly enough, it will be interesting to see what the people near them can recall. (May point to a failure of the seatbelts?)
EDIT: Can we please stop posting the "account from an expat trainer"? It's been posted three times already
Last edited by givemewings; 11th Jul 2013 at 10:25.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ka6crpe
I've not explained my position here well enough, that is my fault.
I do not think not having the G/S on was the primary cause here, not in a million years.
My point is how do you explain it to a layman, someone who pays the money to get on the jet, or a judge.
There is a piece of technology that would have prevented this crash happening, but it was turned off. It wasn't broken, it was turned off with no contingency being put in place, because it would have been more expensive to put that contingency in place.
To me, it seems a highly difficult position to defend.
I've not explained my position here well enough, that is my fault.
I do not think not having the G/S on was the primary cause here, not in a million years.
My point is how do you explain it to a layman, someone who pays the money to get on the jet, or a judge.
There is a piece of technology that would have prevented this crash happening, but it was turned off. It wasn't broken, it was turned off with no contingency being put in place, because it would have been more expensive to put that contingency in place.
To me, it seems a highly difficult position to defend.
Last edited by course_profile; 11th Jul 2013 at 10:27.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mud Island
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have been going on and on about unstable approaches for (at least) twenty years yet we still continue to see them in the headlines .... and many more that didn't make it to the front page. Virtually all airlines have a FDM program so why isn't this alone effective in preventing these extremes? There are some places where you are almost always going to get set up for a slam-dunk .... could safety departments become complacent about data from airports like SFO?
Last edited by offa; 11th Jul 2013 at 10:28.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: No where
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some news is quite miss leading saying captain ordered not to evacuate.
The reality is captain used 90 seconds to evaluate the situation and decided to proceed with evacuation.
Some evacuation is decided in the air such as partial gear landing, even for that, captain needs to assess the situation on the ground before ordering evacuation.
But for this case, flight crew only knew it was a landing went wrong. Taking time to assess what the situation is like shows professionalism. If the cabin is in immanent danger such as fire or smoke (which has no indication in flight deck) cabin crew can initiate evac with out PICs permission.
There are several steps needs to be done before ordering an evac. For instance, pilot needs to make sure engines are shutdown, with engine separated there is likely to be no engine indication on the instruments, hence can not confirm if it is still running, pilot can not see what is on (or not) the wings and needs to relay on outside reference.
90 seconds to evacuate the aircraft with half doors open is for aircraft certification purpose NOT a time limit for pilot to assess situation to make a decision.
It is sometimes safer to stay in the aircraft than wonder around on the tarmac.
The reality is captain used 90 seconds to evaluate the situation and decided to proceed with evacuation.
Some evacuation is decided in the air such as partial gear landing, even for that, captain needs to assess the situation on the ground before ordering evacuation.
But for this case, flight crew only knew it was a landing went wrong. Taking time to assess what the situation is like shows professionalism. If the cabin is in immanent danger such as fire or smoke (which has no indication in flight deck) cabin crew can initiate evac with out PICs permission.
There are several steps needs to be done before ordering an evac. For instance, pilot needs to make sure engines are shutdown, with engine separated there is likely to be no engine indication on the instruments, hence can not confirm if it is still running, pilot can not see what is on (or not) the wings and needs to relay on outside reference.
90 seconds to evacuate the aircraft with half doors open is for aircraft certification purpose NOT a time limit for pilot to assess situation to make a decision.
It is sometimes safer to stay in the aircraft than wonder around on the tarmac.
It is sometimes safer to stay in the aircraft than wonder around on the tarmac.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While working as a Captain at another major Asian carrier we (pilots) were required to attend the Sim Evacuation exercises with the Flight Attendants. This is done in a full size cabin mock-up with motion that is next to the pool.
The way the exercise was supposed to go was that we were to have a water ditching. The Flight Crew (pilots) give the inital prep over the PA and the FAs brief the passengers. The briefing portion to the passengers by the FAs was very poorly done and few of the key points were actually accomplished to standard.
After the simulated touchdown in the water it was my task to issue the evac command. However, I took the option of playing dead - that is, I said nothing. And in the cabin, nothing happened. At all. Nobody did anything. Minutes passed. Finally. I gave up and asked: "Does anyone seriously think this aircraft is going to taxi to the gate?" (Remember this was a water "landing" - ditching). Finally, they carried on with the evac and everyone went out the slide into the water. Lots of giggles and wet FAs. Everyone passed of course.
The way the exercise was supposed to go was that we were to have a water ditching. The Flight Crew (pilots) give the inital prep over the PA and the FAs brief the passengers. The briefing portion to the passengers by the FAs was very poorly done and few of the key points were actually accomplished to standard.
After the simulated touchdown in the water it was my task to issue the evac command. However, I took the option of playing dead - that is, I said nothing. And in the cabin, nothing happened. At all. Nobody did anything. Minutes passed. Finally. I gave up and asked: "Does anyone seriously think this aircraft is going to taxi to the gate?" (Remember this was a water "landing" - ditching). Finally, they carried on with the evac and everyone went out the slide into the water. Lots of giggles and wet FAs. Everyone passed of course.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone of all you guys working up there in the skies who have any idea about what the "blinded by a bright light @500 feet" could be about?
Only a so-called laser-attack, imho.
Only a so-called laser-attack, imho.
The PF of an aeroplane that will soon crash and kill 2 passengers is temporarily blinded, does not report it to the other crew members if what has been said about the crew not communicating for the last 2 minutes of the flight is correct, and it is ONLY a so-called laser-attack???
It's as much a factor, if correct, as some people are making the lack of an ILS.
As I have said previously, the key to the enigma is on the CVR, both in what is heard or maybe more importantly, what is not heard.
I'm sure we would all like to think that we have 'Sully' in the driving seat when something goes tits up (like the airbus you are on turning into a glider over a major city with only a river to try to land on), but you don't have to be an 'aviation expert' to know that for every 'Sully' flying passengers around the sky there has to be an equal & opposite 'Anti-Sully' who can't cope at all when something sufficiently out of their comfort zone occurs.